LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 368 839 2 



CooscrvatioD Resources 



SPEECH 

P 195 
.G64 
Copy 1 

OP 



' HON. WILLIAM 0. GOODE 

OF VIRGINIA, 



ON THE 



BILL TO ESTABLISH AN AUXILIARY GUARD FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA; 



I>£^^VERGD 

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENT ATI VES, APRIL 19, 1858.^ 



WAStiiNGf ON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLORE OFFICE. 
1858. 



«►» 




^^•^:. 



U^ 



(' ^ 



SPEECH. 



The House being in the Committee of the Wliole on the 
«tate of tlie Union, and having under consideration the bill 
to estalilisli an Auxiliary Guard for tlie District of Colum- 
bia- 
Mr. GOODE said: 

Mr. Chairman: The few sugs^estions which I 
propose to offer will be expressed briefly as I can. 
1 liave no essay to pubiisi;. If [ liad the weight 
of character or power of language to command 
the attention of the House, 1 should not indulge 
in inflammatory declamation. I should employ my 
strength to impress the House with a just percep- ! 
lion of the measure on wiiich we are called to de- j 
cide. 

Several days have passed since this question 
was opened for discussion. The debate has taken 
a wide range, and gentlemen have felt themselves 
called upon to go forth into the wide field of par- 1 
tisan warfare. I shall not follow their example. 
I shall endeavor to call back attention to the true j 
pending question. It was just announced from i 
the chair. The committee are called upon to pass j 
on the comparative merits of the bill I have pro- j 
posed, and the substitute for the Senate bill offered j 
by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Dodd.] ! 
The general objects and provisions of these plans 
are nearly identical. They )irovide for the same 
force, the same number of officers, and for nearly 
the same expenditure of money; but the regular 
expenditure, under my bill, will require a sum 
smaller, by about ji!2,5L)0, than the [ilan of the gen- 
tleman from Nev.^ York — and to that extent I am 
entitled to the argumentof economy, but I admit 
the advantage is inconsiderable. There are, how- 
ever, important differences in the two proposi- 
tions. My bill establishes a police court, by which 
offenders against the law and police regulations 
may be summarily tried and punished, which I 
regard as an actual necessity in the administra- 
tion of justice in this city. At present, the pros- 
ecution of the most petty offenses is by a regu- 
lar criminal prosecution, requiring an indictment 
by the grand jury — the minimum expense being 
about forty dollars, often ranging above one hun- 
dred dollars, and requiring from the Treasury aa 



annual appropriation far exceeding one hundred 
thousand dollars for the prosecution of petty of- 
fenses in the District of Columbia. A large pro- 
portion of this would be saved by the provision 
of my bill — a sura, perhaps, equal to the whole 
cost of the contemplated police force. 

But the distinguishing characteristics of the two 
propositions are to be found in the different modes 
of appointment. The gentleman from New York 
proposes to constitute a board of commissioners 
to organize this police force — the board to be 
elected by the qualified voters of the city of Wash- 
ington. Not only to be elected, but chosen in 
equal numbers from contending political parties. 
Tile sclieme contemplates the election of two Dem- 
ocrats and two Know Nothings or Americans. 
Thus will be introduced into the organization 
antagonistic elements, in equal forces. The nature 
of the service of a police force demands prompti- 
tude, secrecy, and energy. It is indispensable it 
should be directed by unity of will, and executed 
with concert of action. The plurality of will and 
antagonism of purpose or of object, are utterly in- 
consistent with the efficiency of the police. The 
discrepancy of views, the conflict of opinions, 
and consequent delay in the deliberations and de- 
cisions of the board must effectually destroy the 
usefulness of a police appointed under the scheme 
of the gentleman from New York. There would / 
be no more probability of accord and agreement . 
in the consultation.s anil decisions of such a board, ■ 
than if those functions were to be performed by 
the gentleman from New York and myself. 

Mr. BURROUGHS. May I ask the gentleman 
from Virginia a question .'' 

Mr. GOODE. Not many questions. 

Mr. BURROUGHS. I desire to ask the gen- 
tleman from Virginia if he does not know that the 
best governed cities and villages in America, to- 
day, are governed by men chosen in this way from 
the two parties ? 

Mr. GOODE. I do not.' I should deem it im- 
practicable for such a board to agree on anything.; 
and the whole scheme seems utterly inadmissible. 
It has been recommended as calculated to free the 
police from partisan influences. To accomplish 



this you provide, in the first instance, for a par- 
nsan election, which is to be repeated annually. 
You provide that Democrats and Americans shall 
TOte together, and yet require that equal numbers 
of each party shall be chosen; and it is requisite 
that these equal numbers of unfriendly and hos- 
tile forces shall act in concert and harmoniously, 
to produce results at all beneficial. I can hope 
for nothing good or efficient from this discord- 
ant, double-headed monster . It is, verily, a double- 
headed monster, with no precedent in history, no 
prototype in nature, no similitude in the regions 
of fancy — except the triple-hea.ded Cerberus, 
placed by mythologists as a guard at the gates 
of hell. 

This nondescript board is obnoxious to the fur- 
ther objection of violating the spirit and principles 
of the Constitution. The power of appointment 
is undoubtedly executive in its very nature. And 
this scheme of the gentleman from New York pro- 
vides for carrying into effect this executive power 
through the agency of a legislative commission. 

With deference I submit that these objections 
to the plan of the gentleman from New York are 
unanswerable. They are entirely avoided by my 
plan, which I shall now proceed to explain. 

My bill provides that the chief shall be ap- 
pointed by the President of the United States, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate; 
that the captains and lieutenants shall be ap- 
pointed by the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
men by the chief of the auxiliary guard; which I ' 
hold to be in strict accordance with the principles 
of the Constitution. The Constitution provides 
that j 

" The Presiiicnt, by and with the advice and consent of ; 
I'he Senate, sliaH appoint emiiassadors, other public minis- 
ters, and consuls, judjies ofthe Supreme Court, and all other 
officers of the United States, whose appointments are not 
herein otherwise provided for, and wliich shall be estab- i 
lished by law. But Congress may by law vest the appoint- 
ment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the 
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of De- 
piirtnients." 

If, then, these be officers of the United States, ! 
the Constitution determines theappointing power. 
But to avoid the force of this argument, gentle- 
men deny that these are Federal officers; but that 
proposition cannot be sustained. They are cer- 
tainly officers. They certainly satisfy the defini- 
tion of that term. But if officers, they must be 
Federal officers, because they are created by act 
of Congress. Their duties are prescribed by act 
of Congress, and they are paid from the Federal 
Treasury. It is therefore impossible to resist the 
conclusion that they are Federal officers, and 
therefore must be appointed by the Federal Exec- 
utive — by the President — by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate. It is true that Con- 
gress may by law provide that such inferior offi- 
i'.ers as they think proper may be appointed by 
the P;-esident alone, to avoid the necessity of ap- 
plying for concurrence of the Senate in so vast a 
number of appointments, and we may provide 
that the courts may appoint their own officers; 
and still further to relieve the President, we may 
provide for the appointrnput of inferior officers by 
the heads of the Departments, which is accord- 
ingly proposed in my bill. With the exceptions 
thus enumerated, all Federal appointments must 
be made by the President, by and with the ad- 
vice and consent of the Senate. 



The Constitution places a,, ^g^utive pov» . 
the President of the United Statt., The power 
of appointment is an executive power, "--i there- 
fore vests in the President. In framing the Con- 
stitution, our ancestors adopted the British Con- 
stitution as their model. In England theappoint- 
ing power vests in the executive Government. 
It is, indeed, a royal prerogative, and to attempt 
to usurp it, is to impinge on the prerogatives of 
the Crown. In this country, by the wisdom of 
ourfathers, the appointingpower is reposed in the 
Chief Executive of the Confederacy. Even if this 
be unwise, it is ordained by the founders of our 
system. It is not denied that the President must 
appoint the superior officers of Government, your 
military and naval commanders, the judges of the 
Supreme Court and of all the Federal courts; and 
yet it is held to be dangerous to confide to hira 
the appointment of the chief of the police of 
Washington city ! 

Mr. MAYNARD. I want to know whether, 
under the act of 1850, the commissioners were 
appointed by the President, or by the courts of 
the District, in which they were to act.' 

Mr. GOODE. Did not the gentleman hear me 
say that Congress had power to provide by law 
for the appointment of inferior officers by the 
courts or by the heads of the Departments.' It 
was precisely the proposition which I announced. 

Mr. BLISS. I would like to be enlightened ow 
one point, for it is an important one. I under- 
stand the gentleman to claim that the officers of 
this District are Federal officers under the Consti- 
tution. 

Mr. GOODE. The officers of the corporation 
are municipal officers; but it is competent for 
Congress to create other officers in the District, 
who are not municipal officers, but who are, of 
necessity. Federal officers. 

Mr. BLISS. I ask whether, under the Consti- 
tution, any difference was made between any of 
the local officers of the District, such as Mayor, 
and policemen, or any other officer.' 

Mr. GOODE. The office of Mayor, under the 
charter, is elective by the people. The office of 
chief of police is proposed to be regulated by this 
bill. If he could be deemed a municipal officer, 
he would be appointed by the Mayor, according 
to the terms ofthe city charter. If he be a Fed- 
eral officer, as appears to me to be unquestionable, 
then, by the terms of the Federaj Constitution, 
the appointment is vested in the Federal Execu- 
tive. We may, by law, provide for the appoint- 
ment by the Secretary of the Interior, or the head 
of any other Department, or in the courts; but if 
there be no such special provision, the appoint- 
ment attaches, ex vi termini, in the President of 
the United States. 

Gentlemen insist it is dangerous to invest the 
President with the alarming power of appointing 
the head of the police of a petty municipality. 
Under the genius of the Constitution they can 
trust him v/ith the supreme power of negotiating 
treaties with foreign countries; they can confide 
to him the appointment of the whole diplomatic 
corps — consuls, ministers, envoys extraordinary 
and ministers plenipotentiary to represent the 
country at foreign Courts; they can trust him to 
appoint our Federal judges, the commanders of 
the Army and Navy of the United Slates, with 
the whole roll of their subordinates; they can tru.st 



^1 ^_,eil command of the Army and 

-~7^rZ.f' tu united States and of the embodied 
rnilitia ' several States when called into act- 

Ua-i dCrvice; but they are thrown into a tremor 
when called to invest him with the dansferous and 
alarming power ofappointiiii^ the chief of the police 
of the city of Washington ! Verily, it seems a 
strong illustration of the proverb, that you "strain 
at a gnat and swallow a camel." 

Sir, when gentlemen denounce this as an alarm- 
ing usurpation; when they denounce the Presi- 
dent of the United States as an unsafe and dan- 
gerous repository of the appointing power, I 
decline, myself, to offer the reply. I refuse to 
place my own authority, my own humble and un- 
known name, to be weighed in the balance against 
those distinguished gentlemen; but I call upon the 
framersof the Constitution to answer; 1 call upon 
James Madison to answer; I call upon Alexander 
Hamilton to answer; I call upon Gouvcrneur 
Morris, upon James Wilson, to answer; I call 
upon John Rutledge, upon Charles Pinkney, 
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Pierce Butler, 
to answer; and last, though not least, I call upon 
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington to 
answer. These, and all these, and such as these, 
if, indeed, there could be such, have placed it in 
the Constitution, have inscribed it upon the en- 
during records of their country, that they regard 
llie President of the United States as the true and 
safe and wise and proper repositary of the power 
of appointment. Such are the names which I 
bring forward to weigh in the balance against the 
authority of honorable gentlemen. 

Sir, I pray the House to examine deliberately 
and dispassionately the nature of the objections 
urged against vesting this appointment in the 
President. It will be found that they rest in a 
great degree on personal hostility to the incum- 
bent. Most of the Opposition have denounced 
him as corrupt. True, there are honorable ex- 
ceptions, and among them I am happy to distin- 
guish the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, 
[Mr. Matnard.] Sir, I have never professed 
myself the peculiarchampion of James Buchanan; 
but I was pained to hear him the subject of these 
unjust and cruel attacks; I was pained to hear 
the denunciation of a man who has spent a long 
and honorable and distinguished life in the virtu- 
ous exercise of the social faculties, and the faith- 
ful discharge of his duty to his country — a man 
who has been borne by public favor through the 
regular gradations of public honors till he was 
eventually installed in the elevated and exalted 
position which he now adorns. I was pained to 
see him made the subject of attack and denunci- 
ation and vituperation, if not of slander. 

Mr. BURPcOUGHS, again interrupting, was 
understood to remark, that it was not to the for- 
mer life and bearing of Mr. Buchanan that ex- 
ception had been taken, but to his present con- 
duct and character. 

Mr. GOO DE. Let me say to the member from 
New York, that any man who brings himself into 
voluntary comparison with James Buchanan, as 
a man of virtue, honor, intelligence, distinction, 
and honorable bearing, will have occasion to deem 
himself fortunate if he should not suffer severely 
from the contrast. Sir, I call upon gentlemen to 
bear in mind it is now openly avowed that the 
objection to place the power of appointment in 



James Buchanan is, that he is unworthy i 
fidence of the country — that he is said to \ 
head ofa rotten and rejiudiated Administrati 
use the elegant and refined language of the n, 
ber from Massachusetts, [Mr. Comins.] Be\ 
Mr. Buchanan became the standard-bearer of l\ 
mocracy, he was exempt from these unjust infi 
putations. Since he was elevated to his present 
position he is made the shining mark for the poi- 
soned arrows of his enemies. I demand it of the 
House to shield an honorable man and a faithful 
public functionary from these rude and Unhal- 
lowed assaults. I ask no member of the House 
to support a measure which his judgment con- 
demns; but, in arranging this power of appoint- 
ment, I call upon the House, and especially the 
Democracy of the House, to shield the President 
from aspersion and obloquy. Gentlemen can vote 
for mv proposition over that of the gentleman from 
New York without being committed to its provis- 
ions. Such vote will be a mere expression of 
preference, and not a declaration of approval. 

It was argued by a gentleman from Kentucky, 
[Mr. Marshall,] that by the charter of the city 
the power of appointment is vested in the Mayor 
of Washington, and that it will be usurpation to 
exert it through the President. I confess I waa 
surprised at such an argument from such a source. 
The charter of the city was designed to enable 
the people here to manage their own local inter- 
ests, and regulate their own municipal affairs. It 
never could have been conceived that by its en- 
actment the Government of the United States sur- 
rendered the right and power of self-protection 
and self-preservation, and the rights and power- 
of eminent domain within the limits of the Dis- 
trict. The- authority of the corporation is con 
current with that of this Government, and only 
concurrent as to subjects affecting particular in- 
terests of the people here. There is no point in 
this broad Confederacy in which this Govern- 
ment does not exercise a jurisdiction, either con- 
current or exclusive. The several States are sov- 
ereign and supreme. They exercise supreme 
authority on sulijects confided to their charge 
in our scheme of polity. Y^et this Government 
exerts its constitutional authority within the lim- 
its of the States, on all subjects intrusted to our 
charge, according to the provisions of the Con- 
stitution. I have seen the illustrious John Mar- 
shall dispensing law and justice, executing the 
powers ofa Federal judge in the same room and 
from the same seat, which bvU a day or so before 
were occupied by a venerable chancellor of Vir- 
ginia. The States are sovereign and supreme. 
We derive our powers from their grant. We ex- 
ercise a divided and concurrent jurisdiction with 
them, within the limits of their several bounda- 
ries. The corporation issubordinate and munici- 
pal; all its powers are the gift of Congress. Yet 
is it gravely insisted that, by the creation of this 
petty municipality. Congress has deprived it- 
self of the right to organize a police here for the 
purposes of self-protection and self-preservation. 
Thus, by this argument, are we reduced to de- 
pendence on the city for the {>ower to exercise the 
functions of Government. 

Sir, I deny that Congress has the right to de- 
prive itself of the power to protect itself, to pro- 
tect the Government, and )iersons and all things 
dependent on the Government, or connected with 



€ 



it. Government cannot divest itself of the power 
to accomplish the purposes of its creation. It 
cannot absolve itself from the oblig'ation to pro- 
tect itself, the Government, its members and em- 
ployes, with the citizens of the Confederacy re- 
sorting lawfully to their seat of Government. Its 
obligation to protect the public property and the 
diplomatic representatives of foreign nations, 
the power to accomplish these high objects, the 
power to exert or to exercise the functions of 
government, the power to accomplish the pur- 
poses of its creation, are vested in Government by 
the Constitution, and imposes a binding obliga- 
tion, from which Congress cannot be absolved by 
any act of legislation. If it had been designed 
by the charter of incorporation for the city of 
Washington to absolve the Federal Government 
from the force of its obligation, the act would 
have been simply nude. 

Sir, it has been urged that Congress is under no 
obligation to support a police here, for the benefit 
and protection of the citizens of Washington, re- 
lieving them from the expense and necessity of 
providing a police for themselves. This argu- 
ment must be respected, because it is urged by 
respectable gentlemen. In itself it is utterly un- 
tenable, and will be regarded by many enlightened 
men as founded on a very narrow and a very 
email prejudice. Might not the corporation re- 
tort that it is under no obligation to provide a 
police here for the protection of Government, and 
its numerous nif^nibcrs, dependents and interests 
and connections? Sir, the police is not designed 
to secure any exclusive or even peculiar advantage 
to the citizens of Washington. It is intended to 
enable the Government well and faithfully and 
securely and conveniently to discharge its duties 
and redeem its obligations to the country. It is 
right the corporation should do this within its 
proper sphere. It is right the Government should 
accomplish this within its own proper sphere. 

There isanother vie w of this subject which must 
commend itself to every fair and candid mind. It 
is undeniably true that the lawlessness which 
prevails here is occasioned, for the most part, by 
the presence of the Federal Government. Our 
presence here congregates within the <ten miles 
square the rowdies and ruffians who set society 
at defiance. I put it to the candor of every gen- 
tleman — does he not believe that if the seat of 
Government were removed, the city would sub- 
side into the quiet and repose of acountry village? 
Is it notjust we should provide the police, the ne- 
cessity for which wo create? 

Mr. Chairma]), I maintain it was the purpose 
of the framers of the Constitution to locate the seat 
of Government in a position to exercise exclusive 
jurisdiction, and to invest it with authority ade- 
quate to its own protection. It was intended to 
avoid the ills and avoid the possibility of conflict- 
ing jurisdiction. 

Gentlemen are familiar with the history of es- 
tablishing the seatof Government at Washington. 
At the close of the war of the Revolution, when 
our arms were triumphant, when the power of 
Britain was overthrown, and victory had perched 
upon our banner, the army which achieved this 
glorious triumph was left in a state of destitu- 
tion. The time had come when that army was 
to be disbanded, and the veteran citizen soldiei- 
return to iiis long neglected home. Kut he was 



without pay — without a cei, « 

1 . r r I L^i money m , 

pocket — tar away from his hoi.. ,,\ ..=,.oii 
J . n 11 , ■ al tatteieu 

and torn — all weariea and worn — he wa. . ^ jjg. 

banded and turned loose upon the world, w-.o^rmt 
even a settlement of his accounts. He knew not 
what allowance would be made for him by the 
country whose enemies he had conquered, and 
whose liberty he had achieved. Great and exten- 
sive discontent prevailed, and there was danser of 
a general mutiny. Never was the address of Gen- 
eral Washington put to severer trial, but he firmly 
essayed the task, and his efforts were crowned 
with success. The spirit of patriotism was dif- 
fused through the army as an emanation from hia 
soul. Order was restored, the army dispersed, 
the liberties of America established upon a last- 
ing foundation. 

At Lancaster, Pennsylvania, there was a canton 
of raw recruits, who refused to be appeased, and 
who refused to submit to be disbanded, on the 
terms which were rendered indispensable by the 
actual poverty of Government. And venting their 
rage, and vowing vengeance, they took up the 
line of march for Philadelphia, where the Conti- 
nental Congress was in session. Their approach 
was known at Philadelphia. Congress called on 
the corporate authorities to provide the means of 
resistance and protection. The corporate author- 
ities referred the question to the State authorities, 
and, pending the delay which intervened, the mu- 
tineers had reached the city. The house in which 
the sessions were held was surrounded by the en- 
raged soldiery. The passways were blockaded 
with fixed bayonets, and a demand was made on 
the Council, who assembled in the same house, that 
the accounts should be settled in twenty minutes; 
and this message was accompanied with the threat 
that, unless their demands were satisfied, the sol- 
diers would be turned loose, with arms in their 
hands, free from all the restraints of law. 

By some means, of which I am not distinctly 
informed, the members effected theirescape; and, 
before they dispersed in confusion, they agreed to 
reassemble in Princeton; and for some time their 
future sessions were held there. After this mor- 
tifying outrage and flagrant insult. Congress re- 
solved that it was necessary to establish the seat 
of Government in a locality and under circum- 
stances where they might exert a power and au- 
thority adequate to their own protection without 
dependence on municipal or State protection; and 
this determination seems very generally to have 
settled down in the public mind. At an early stage 
of the proceedings of the Federal convention which 
framed the Constitution of the United States, a 
resolution was adopted instructing the committee 
to insert a clause insuring an adequate authority 
in the Federal Government for all the purposes of 
self-protection, which resulted in the clause now 
found in the Constitution establishing an exclu- \ 
sive jurisdiction within this District. 

This clause is the result of liie deliberate judg- 
ment of the public mind; the deliberate purpose 
of the country to clothe the Federal Government 
with power to protect itself, and carry into effect 
the great purposes of its creation. And when this 
District was established as the seat of Govern- 
ment, Maryland and Virginia were severally re- 
quired to surrender the rights of eminent domain, 
and invest Congress with power of exclusive legis- 
lation; and now it is gravely maintained that, by 



I 



8 



in his behalf; but, in discredit of the alleged ob- 
jection, I have been informed that he has always 
pronounced jiulgment of death, when justified by 
the finding of tiie jury; and in one case especially, 
■when a pardon v/as granted by President Fill- 
more. And, after all, Mr. Chairman, the excep- 
tion is founded in a ferocious and blood-thirsty 
spirit, demanding the relentless punishment of 
death. For myself, sir, I candidly admit I shall 
be ever willing that the capital code shall be ad- 
ministered in the spiritof humanity and clemency, 
and that its judgments may lie tempered with 
mercy, as far as public safety will allow. I should 
far more admire the mild and gentle glories of a 
Hale than the ferocious notoriety of a JeiTreys. 

Sir, some gentlemen have alluded to a painful 
topic, which I cannot be provoked to discuss. 
Even the fierce and bitter spirit of party might be 
expected to reletit and to soften when the grave 
has closed upon its enemy. Let the green grass 
grow around the grave of one who has passed 



away from sublunary scent... j 
untouched by the polluted tife^ ^'\^ ^°V"~~^ 
evenge. Sir, I refuse to desecrate''l.'"'^'"'i ^"" 
of the dead. I refuse to disturb the sl^l'^^^J^ 
the grave. Several gentlemen have fiercely fth>^ 
gled in this bitter war of party politics. I decline 
to follow their example. If they be content with 
the exhibition which they have made before the 
country, few can have occasion of regret. 

And now, sir, in conclusion, I call upon the 
House to rise for once superior to the littleness 
of party prejudice, and adopt a measure demanded 
by the necessity of the times. For myself, sir, I 
have perhaps as little personal interest in the sub- 
ject as any one member of this body. I am always 
safe and secure from violence. Secure in the fact 
that I am rarely abroad under circumstances of 
exposure. Always secure, and doubly secure 
in a firm reliance on myself. Doubly and triply 
secure in 

"Tlie might which slumbers in a peasant's arm." 




the chartering of fi-r Pe."y municipality of this 
citv we liave c*^''^^*^ a rival authority here, with 



power SUP 



.lor to our own; deprivins; Congress 



of the -'tiispensable power of self-protection, and 
roJdcing the Government of the United States to 
acondition of dependence on the city of Washing- 
ton. Sir, I cannot believe that such an argument 
is of force to convince the mind of the House. 

Sir, it seems to be generally agreed that the ap- 
pointing power should be free from all partisan 
influences. All profess to desire this. Surely it 
is desirable; but how shall it be attained ? In this 
free country every citizen is a politician; every 
public man is a partisan. Can you avoid partisan 
influences? Sir, to accomplish this desirable ob- 
ject of excluding partisan influences, the gentle- 
man from New York provides, aa the first step, 
to resort to a popular election for the choice of a 
commission, to consist of four partisan leaders — 
two to be chosen from each of the political parties 
of Washington — and this process to be continued 
from year to year; whilst the gentleman from 
Ohio, [Mr. Leiter,] in the eager pursuit of the 
same object of excluding partisan influences, pro- 
poses for our adoption a legislative commission, 
in which he names as commissioners the two par- 
tisan candidates for the mayoralty. The name 
of a third commissioner is quite providently in- 
serted, whose political connection will insure the 
decision of every question on the side of the po- 
litical party of which the honorable gentleman 
from Ohio is himself a distinguished, ornamental 
partisan leader. Other gentlemen insist that, not- 
withistanding the history of the past, the Mayor 
of the city is the best repositary of the power of 
appointment. To this I reply the argument of a 
bitter experience. Through the future it will be 
as it has been through the past. The Mayor to 
.select the officers and men — and they v/ith power 
to elect the Mayor — remissness and relaxation of 
discipline will necessarily obtain, and inefliciency 
and worthlessness will mark the character of the 
police force. This is, of all the modes suggested, 
the most objectionable in practice. 

And now, sir, I approach the close of the few 
remarks I proposed to offer. When I rose to 
explain the provisions of this bill, the House will 
bear me witness, I came forward coolly and de- 
liberately, without passion or excitement. I made 
no appeal to party spirit or party prejudice. I 
confined myself strictly to a simple exposition of 
the provisions of the bill; and I was content to 
rely on the intelligence of Congress to give effect 
to the measure. My brief discourse was a pas- 
sionless narrative. No sooner had I taken my 
seat than a member from Massachusetts rose in 
his place, and launched forth into the lioisterous 
discussion of party politics. With sligiit allu- 
sion to the question of police, he felt it to be his 
duty to denounce the President of the United 
States; to arraign and denounce the Cabinet as 
rotten and unworthy of public confidence; to de- 
nounce and threaten the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and the venerable Chief Justice of 
this country. 

Mr. COM INS. I beg to correct the gentleman 
from Virginia. In speaking against this bill, I 
made no allusion to the Supreme Court of the 
United States, or to the venerable Chief Justice 
of that court. I said justice was at fault in this 
city through the inefficiency of the criminal court 



of this District, more than from the remissness 
of the police in the discharge of their duties. I 
in no way assailed Judge Crawford; but I alluded 
to the inefliciency of his court. Neither did I 
allude to the Cabinet of the President; but 1 did 
allude to his Administration. 

Mr. GOODE. I beg pardon; I thousrht it was 
he who alluded to the decision in the Dred Scott 
case. It may have been some one of his com- 
peers. I absolve the gentleman quo ad hoc; but 
only as to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice. 
By his own admission, he assailed the criminal 
court of this District; and it appears from his 
printed speech that he had the intlelicacy to assail, 
by name, the honorable judge who presides in 
tliat court. I have no personal acquaintance with 
Judge Crawford. Hi- has not approached me on 
this occasion to place me in possession of facts, 
on which to ground his defense here to-day. But 
honorable gentlemen of the legal profession — men 
of undoubted standing, whose good opinion is 
worthy to be coveted by the best of us frail hu- 
man beings — men at the head of the Washington 
bar, distinguished ornaments of an honorable pro- 
fession, and who stand opposed to Judge Craw- 
ford in his political association — have voluntarily 
come forward to defend him against this unjust 
and indelicate assault, and to authorize me to 
speak of him in the presence of the American 
Congress as an amiable man, an accomplished 
gentleman, a pure, a just, an able, and an upright 
judge, enjoying, in an eminent degree, the confi- 
dence and affection of the community in which 
he lives. 

Gentlemen have objected particularly to the ac- 
tion of the court in the case of a member of Con- 
gress who was tried here for murder during the 
last Congress. It is painful to introduce into this 
discussion these delicate and distressing topics. 
No man could have regretted the occurrence more 
than did the unfortunate man himself. None more 
than his intimate friends. But, sir, what would 
gentlemen demand ? The offender submitted him- 
self to the laws of his country. He was subjected 
to rigorous criminal prosecution, tried and acquit- 
ted by a jury of his country, and of course dis- 
charged by the court. Would gentlemen require 
he should be hung by the court in defiance of the 
finding of the jury? But objections are taken to 
the opinion of the judge in expounding the law of 
the case. I understand the judge ruled the law to 
be, " that if, in a case of muUial combat, the jury 
believed the circumstances were such as to justify 
the prisoner in considering that his own life was 
in imminent peril, or that he was in danger of 
great bodily harm, at the moment when he struck 
the fatal blow, the jury would be justified in ren- 
dering a verdict of homicide se dejhulendo." Is 
the gentleman prepared to object to this ruling? 
and is he prepared to sustain such objection? I 
believe this has been adjudged to be law in most 
of the States of this Confederacy — and long, long 
years since, was adjudged to be law in Massachu- 
setts. 

Exception has bden taken to the supposed opin- 
ions of Judge Crawford touching the abstract, 
speculative doctrine of capital punishment; and it 
has been objected that his opinions are supposed 
to encourage crime within the range of his juris- 
diction. I have no knowledge of his speculative 
doctrines, and I am not at all authorized to speak 



i 



LIBRARV OF CONGRESS 




7014 368 839 2 # 




014 361 



iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiillllll 

014 368 839 2 % 



ConservatioD Resources 



